The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 4: April-June 2021


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I doubt that this book will be solely about Harry and Archie or that Meghan will be divulging details of their lives together. Just judging by the few illustrations that have been shown by the publishers so far it shows an African American father relaxing with his boy and a soldier bidding farewell to his little son before deployment. I think the illustrations are beautiful btw.

So it’s likely to be about a diverse number of dads in different careers and circumstances, and celebrating the love between the men and their sons. If this book does well Meghan might write one about the bond between mothers and daughters next.
 
Well, I have to agree with you. I am becoming more cynical too. Meghan is not stupid: I’m sure they have some sort of plan or are working on other things. You don’t write and have someone illustrate and publish a book overnight. :argh:

I’ve never not been cynical of the interview since it aired. I remember thinking before that Harry would never trash his father or the family, but his support for the Crown (in the Corden piece) turned me off...

Meghan, IMO, is quite clever, and while I don’t think Harry is, and that he’s probably following her lead, make no mistake - he knew exactly what he was doing. Charles supported HM in refusing H and M a “court” of their own, so H only blames C.wanted H to put a plan in writing - as did HM - and H blames C. Father decides to stop funding son after financially supporting him for years - son complains on air, portraying his mother as the only parent who cares. It was a deliberate painting of his father as a villain - the family as well, really - in order to justify their behavior. Even with all that, most Americans just don’t give a fig about them.

Harry will regret this one day.

I can understand Meghan wanting to celebrate the bond Harry has with Archie, despite, or maybe even due to, the friction that she and Harry have with their own fathers. As others have pointed out, the bond between a parent and a toddler is pretty straightforward compared to what comes later, (I doubt Charles ever thought things would come to this when he was spending time with a two year old Harry), but it’s still special, and with a first child it’s also completely new. So of course Meghan has every right to be happy that Harry and Archie have bonded well.

What I don’t understand is why this all warrants publishing a book? I read that the book started as a poem she wrote for Harry just after Archie was born - why not just leave it at that? Meghan’s husband loves their child so a book gets published. Meghan has a miscarriage and then feels the need to write an editorial for The New York Times. Meghan and Harry fight with his family and the result is a tell all interview with Oprah. What part of their lives are they going to sell next?

First point is fair...

Second...well I suppose anyone can write a book if they want; I’d understand it more if it were about fathers and sons in general as opposed to this particular father and son. The only reason to write the book would be to capitalize on their Royal connections. They want privacy, except when they don’t. Anything that can be monetized, will be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First point is fair...

Second...well I suppose anyone can write a book if they want; I’d understand it more if it were about fathers and sons in general as opposed to this particular father and son. The only reason to write the book would be to capitalize on their Royal connections. They want privacy, except when they don’t. Anything that can be monetized, will be.

it *is* about fathers and sons in general and only "inspired" by her own husband and son, as i understand it from the archewell announcement
https://archewell.com/news/meghan-t...announces-her-debut-childrens-book-the-bench/

"Inspired by her own husband and son, The Duchess of Sussex’s debut touchingly captures the evolving and expanding relationship between fathers and sons and reminds us of the many ways that love can take shape and be expressed in a modern family."

i could well imagine (but ofcourse just imo) that they don't consider either of their own childhoods to have been in a "modern" family, and therefore don't consider this hypocrisy as some are commenting it to be..
 
Last edited:
Well, this surely never happened, Harry saying good bye or hello leaving or homecoming from military deployment. Makes no sense at all, to include this in the story or only the illustrations but to hold up their highly unrealistic view on life.
Wow, will be interesting to see how REAL soldiers react to this, feeling mocked by a prince who cannot cope being taken away his honorary military ranks etc , but still acting as if he had an importance to men on duty being deployed/ or in combat?
As far as my husband is considered, he lifted an eyebrow when I showed him the illustration.
But of course it is too early to judge, we will see like always. But honestly, I doubt Harry will be cheered by any military personel IF this turns out as weird as it looks now.

They really seem to have talent getting things worse, but as long as the cashflow is all right don't care.
 
That soldier may have red hair but he is wearing US army fatigues and cap. Why would they include Harry in an illustration of a soldier going away on deployment and saying goodbye to an infant son?

Harry does know about deployment, he was twice in Afghanistan on active service in war zones. He served for a decade in the Blues and Royals and later British army air services. So he was a Real Soldier.

And for many years Harry has supported vets, wounded, maimed and damaged. Remember Walking with the Wounded and Invictus? But that illustration isn’t of him and the wife in the window isn’t Meghan.

As I posted before, I believe this book talks about the bond between many diverse fathers and their sons. It’s not a portrait of Harry and Archie. If it was exclusively about them, where does the illustration of the African American father and son fit in?
 
Last edited:
That soldier may have red hair but he is wearing US army fatigues and cap. Why would they include Harry in an illustration of a soldier going away on deployment and saying goodbye to an infant son?

Harry does know about deployment, he was twice in Afghanistan on active service in war zones and served for a decade in the Blues and Royals and later British army air services. And for many years Harry has supported vets, wounded, maimed and damaged. Remember Invictus? But that illustration isn’t of him and the wife in the window isn’t Meghan.


As I posted before, I believe this book talks about the bond between many diverse fathers and their sons. It’s not a portrait of Harry and Archie. If it was exclusively about them, where does the illustration of the African American father and son fit in?

I know he served, but ne never did while his son lives. Sorry, I should have wrote this more clearly in the post above.
As I said, time will tell, what she is trying to say with the thing.
 
It does make sense if your focus is on producing sound bites to help you monetize your personal story.

I’ve gotten progressively more cynical about the interview in the weeks since it first aired. They did it to help build their brand for the American market. They wanted a few parts to really stick - the racism accusation, the alleged money woes with Charles as the villain and the idea of The Sussexes as being trapped and isolated in the middle of a mental health crisis. They kept those parts just vague enough to provoke as much discussion as possible.

What they obviously weren’t aiming for was logic or even coherence, (and certainly not dignity). They said multiple things during the interview that weren’t true, and I don’t think it was by accident. They didn’t care that essentially all of the UK and a sizeable portion of Americans who bothered to pay attention knew they were full of it. The US is a huge country, so even if you take away the vast majority of the population who could care less about them, as well as the substantial chunk of people who are turned off by them, that still leaves a sizeable number who are either gullible enough to believe them or who will support them regardless of what they actually say or do, for various reasons. That’s the only group they care about because that’s the group that will make them money and keep them in the public eye.

Very well said!
 
(...)

What I don’t understand is why this all warrants publishing a book? I read that the book started as a poem she wrote for Harry just after Archie was born - why not just leave it at that? Meghan’s husband loves their child so a book gets published. Meghan has a miscarriage and then feels the need to write an editorial for The New York Times. Meghan and Harry fight with his family and the result is a tell all interview with Oprah. What part of their lives are they going to sell next?

If they're taking note from Sarah, maybe something similar to "Finding Sarah". "The Duchess and Daughters" can be one too (or adapt it into "The Duke and Son?").

Come to think of it, Sarah does have a long list if they want to follow her footstep: guest-hosting (ABC's The View or Gayle King?), make a movie with a brief appearance of Archie or his sister ... they haven't done half of what Sarah did. Though I hope they'd learn from Sarah's faux pas, so no need to sell access to, say the Cambridges or Charles, or taking money from famous person with dubious life.

And remember when Sarah said "I love American people because they saved my life. When the British threw me out, the Americans embraced me and said ‘it’s alright Fergie, we’ll have you, we’ll give you a second chance. I’d had such bad press that is was very hard to live ... I don’t have a house, but I live here ... I am the No. 1 fan, I love Americans.” So maybe tweak it a bit to appeal more American audience?
 
Last edited:
Plenty of celebrities - which is how Meghan clearly sees herself - write books about all sorts of things. It's quite frustrating when you think of all the would-be authors, whose work is probably much better, desperately trying to find a publisher, when people get their books published with no trouble because they're an ex-footballer or used to be in a popular soap opera or are a retired politician. People buy it because of the name, so someone who's already got a lot of money makes even more. It's not very fair, but it's the way it goes.
 
it *is* about fathers and sons in general and only "inspired" by her own husband and son, as i understand it from the archewell announcement
https://archewell.com/news/meghan-t...announces-her-debut-childrens-book-the-bench/

"Inspired by her own husband and son, The Duchess of Sussex’s debut touchingly captures the evolving and expanding relationship between fathers and sons and reminds us of the many ways that love can take shape and be expressed in a modern family."

i could well imagine (but ofcourse just imo) that they don't consider either of their own childhoods to have been in a "modern" family, and therefore don't consider this hypocrisy as some are commenting it to be..

This makes it worse.....I’ve no doubt about their love for Archie, but considering that they have no or bad relationships with their fathers, and Harry destroyed his publicly, I don’t see how anyone can take this seriously.
 
If anyone wants to know exactly what happened at Elizabeth's coronation, including who said what at what stage of the proceedings, you can find it here: The Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II Every peer took this oath:

"I, N. Duke, or Earl, etc., of N.
do become your liege man of life and limb,
and of earthly worship;
and faith and truth I will bear unto you,
to live and die, against all manner of folks.
So help me God."

So I'm assuming Harry would be expected to give a similar oath to his father and, later, to his brother. I wonder what the consequences would be if he didn't?


Well, if he becomes a US citizen, which BTW I don't think he will, and takes the citizenship oath to "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty", he won't be able to take the coronation pledge in the UK as the two oaths are obviously incompatible.
 
They don't send round the truancy officer if dukes don't turn up to the Coronation! The Duke of Windsor didn't attend George VI's coronation, because obviously it would have been pretty awkward. I think this is all hypothetical because I can't see Harry becoming a US citizen, but, if it was that much of an issue, he could just miss the Coronation ... causing even more awkwardness ...
 
Well, if he becomes a US citizen, which BTW I don't think he will, and takes the citizenship oath to "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty", he won't be able to take the coronation pledge in the UK as the two oaths are obviously incompatible.

That's the part I was getting at yesterday. Becoming a US citizen and saying the oath, (which is different from being born a US citizen) is incompatible with the Coronation and also being a Counsellor of State.

Of course they could always skip the Coronation as Alison H says but given how we were assured over and over again that Meghan really, really wanted to be at Prince Philip's funeral and the nature of the brand relying on a living connection to the BRF I can't see them willingly skipping Harry's father's Coronation for anything.

This is an entirely theoretical discussion given that there's no indication Harry wants to become a US citizen but it does show up some theoretical, practical and family difficulties of potentially becoming one that don't apply to non royal/peer dual citizens.
 
The Duke of Windsor didn’t turn up to King George VI’s Coronation because (a) he was an ex monarch who abdicated the Throne and (b) his was a made to measure Royal Dukedom, quite unique, with no subsidiary titles and no way of passing his Dukedom to any heirs and successors.
 
This makes it worse.....I’ve no doubt about their love for Archie, but considering that they have no or bad relationships with their fathers, and Harry destroyed his publicly, I don’t see how anyone can take this seriously.

Now there are accusations of plagiarism; apparently Meghan's book is very similar to one by Corrine Averiss.

I wonder if there will be any legal problems?
 
Now there are accusations of plagiarism; apparently Meghan's book is very similar to one by Corrine Averiss.

I wonder if there will be any legal problems?

No there isn’t. It’s the Daily Mail saying it’s “almost identical” which is actually quite laughable.


If anything I’m sure Corrine Averiss is thankful for the publicity. ?

ETA: The DM has already changed their article after the author said she saw no similarities. Guess they need to find a new angle.
 
Last edited:
Now there are accusations of plagiarism; apparently Meghan's book is very similar to one by Corrine Averiss.

I wonder if there will be any legal problems?
This is the second time, am I correct? Because I remember that there were some allegations her piece for the New York Times was plagiarised or at least parts of it were. Oh well :lol:
 
It is indeed the second (or maybe third) time the tabloids tried to accuse her of plagiarism, only for it to be shot down. They need to be try something new.
 
Now there are accusations of plagiarism; apparently Meghan's book is very similar to one by Corrine Averiss.

I wonder if there will be any legal problems?

This is the second time, am I correct? Because I remember that there were some allegations her piece for the New York Times was plagiarised or at least parts of it were. Oh well :lol:

Corrinne Averiss herself has denied any similarities beyond the title:

Reading the description and published excerpt of the Duchess’s new book, this is not the same story or the same theme as The Boy on the Bench. I don’t see any similarities apart from the use of a bench - which exist in as many stories as they do parks and gardens.

Please stop pushing a false narrative just because you don't like Meghan.
 
I don't think Harry would become a US citizen, he would probably lose his titles if he did and we all know how much he loves those titles.
 
Harry was born a Prince. If you have something like that sort of styling from babyhood it becomes part of you. You don’t actually choose it.
 
Please stop pushing a false narrative just because you don't like Meghan.
Not trying to push any false narrative :flowers: I've never claimed it is plagiarism, just that Meghan has been accused of it not for the first time, which is a fact - this book, the miscarriage piece and one of her speeches.
 
:previous: And in this case, the accusations clearly don't hold as explicitly stated by the author of the book people are accusing her of plagiarising. So what point does waddling around in it serve? (If not to note that some people seem to take a disproportionate interest in accusing Meghan of plagiarism just for the sake of it?)
 
The Duke of Windsor didn’t turn up to King George VI’s Coronation because (a) he was an ex monarch who abdicated the Throne and (b) his was a made to measure Royal Dukedom, quite unique, with no subsidiary titles and no way of passing his Dukedom to any heirs and successors.

Neither option I am afraid. He was told he would not be invited to King George VI coronation and Elizabeth II's by the government, not the royal family. You can go to a coronation with titles, most do.
The problem is optical - they didn't want people thinking that he was still around and possible might be in the succession. The British people were to mentally write him off. He no longer existed as far as they were concerned. Under no circumstance were people allowed to think - well maybe he should return as monarch.
 
I’m not denying he was told not to attend, but ex monarchs don’t turn up to their successor’s Coronations by custom either.
 
Last edited:
:previous: And in this case, the accusations clearly don't hold as explicitly stated by the author of the book people are accusing her of plagiarising. So what point does waddling around in it serve? (If not to note that some people seem to take a disproportionate interest in accusing Meghan of plagiarism just for the sake of it?)

A friend at Penguin Children's tells they are completely different books and that there are many writers exploring the child Father relationship and they could have used any of these for a plagiarism accusation. Just as they can any of these books to each other. On another note - thus manuscript appears to have done the rounds to get published. It is not good and it is far from an original concept.
 
Plenty of celebrities - which is how Meghan clearly sees herself - write books about all sorts of things. It's quite frustrating when you think of all the would-be authors, whose work is probably much better, desperately trying to find a publisher, when people get their books published with no trouble because they're an ex-footballer or used to be in a popular soap opera or are a retired politician. People buy it because of the name, so someone who's already got a lot of money makes even more. It's not very fair, but it's the way it goes.



Indeed. It isn’t fair. But- it is what it is. People will buy this book because she wrote it. She’s getting tons of publicity for it simply because she married exceedingly well. A lot of celebrities are at least famous for something they actually accomplished. (Not all, of course!lol)

Speaking of- I can’t help but wonder how much of it she wrote. All of it? Some of it? Did she have help? Take writing classes? It’s not like everyone can just up and write a children’s book and have it be any good. It’s a skill. I know Meghan wrote some of her speeches, but speech writing and children’s books aren’t even remotely similar.
 
It is actually quite pathetic. I get people dislike Meghan but they really need to stop dragging innocent people because they want to attack her.


She issued a statement tweet. It is a shame she had to do it because the tabloids were bombarding her. This happened with others in the past too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous: And in this case, the accusations clearly don't hold as explicitly stated by the author of the book people are accusing her of plagiarising. So what point does waddling around in it serve? (If not to note that some people seem to take a disproportionate interest in accusing Meghan of plagiarism just for the sake of it?)
I think a lot of us read about the similarities and accusations of plagiarism before reading that the author of the other book does not see similarities. So if it doesn’t bother Ms Averiss it doesn’t bother me.

I do think it is incredibly tone-deaf and mind boggling that she would choose to write a book on father - son relationships given that she helped Harry throw his own father under the bus and she herself hasn’t seen her own father in 3 years.

As children’s books go, I can’t see it becoming a classic (Good Night, Moon - it isn’t ) nor making tons of $$$. What it does do is keep her name in the public eye which is the goal.?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom